Image 01 Image 03

A behavioral scientist examines Sequestration logic

A behavioral scientist examines Sequestration logic

A professor at Harvard has applied her behavioral science background to the use of the “sequestration” tactic in an article, “The Strange Behavioral Logic of the Sequester Stalemate.”

She uses the somewhat forced nature of the upcoming automatic spending cuts and compares elements of the situation to other hard-and-fast goals we place upon ourselves in everyday situations, and uses her behavioral science background to suggest why the stalemate in Washington.

She states two assumptions for the purposes of this exercise: that the players involved genuinely want to reach a resolution, and that the process itself is difficult.

These are large assumptions to make, especially the first one, and she has glossed over other factors such as ideology or political manueverings (not minor assumptions), but the exercise in a useful one in understanding how behavior can impact public policy.

Francesca Gino writes:

…Behavioral science research can help explain the reasons behind the current stalemate. We know from hundreds of research studies that goals do motivate people: specific, difficult goals make people strive harder to accomplish what they set out to do. One example, ironically, comes from government: In 1961, president John F. Kennedy gave a speech that set the goal of getting people to the moon and safely back within a decade….These specific, difficult goals are intended to motivate us to do things that we do not like to do, like negotiating over budget issues with a counterpart who does not share our views….

But research also suggests that goals are not always beneficial. When people violate their goals (eating that bag of chips), they experience further delays in task completion and tend to perform poorly. So if you only have five pounds to go, you’re more likely to try hard to lose it. But if you fail to accomplish your goal, or think that reaching it is nearly impossible, you’re more likely to experience negative emotions and resignation.

In other words, hard and fast goals are productive up to a point–and if the outcome seems unobtainable, you may end up in a worse negotiating place than before.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



With the Washington Post’s “Fact Check” that Obama owns the idea for Sequestration,

I found the following AP Headline and splash paragraph very Humorous:

From Associated Press
February 28, 2013 4:27 PM EST

A sturdier US economy can withstand budget cuts

February 28, 2013 4:27 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — As economic policy goes, experts say, the automatic spending cuts that kick in Friday are — to use a technical term — bone-headed.”

Who’d have thought that the media would agree that Obama’s ideas were “Bone-headed”.

Every little thing is chipping away at the Golden Boy’s patina, to reveal the bone-headedness underneath.


“She states two assumptions for the purposes of this exercise: that the players involved genuinely want to reach a resolution, and that the process itself is difficult.”

Barry is playing his Emperor game. He wants the nation trashed, the rest is bullshit! He wants the nation to become, Kendonesia..


Francesca Gino uses the simple and innocent example of “eating a bag of chips”.

Imagine the mess Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg would make of that.

The left politicizes everything for what they believe is the greater good.

You’d really think all that tuition and such credentials could buy something more than theory, theory, theory.

Such a shame to give up the stories of the ages for this pablum.

Amazing audio by Democrat Lanny Davis detailing the threats made by the White House…

I’ve got your “goal” right here Professor Gino !

Behavioral scientist? Oh, like B.F. Skinner, who thought that human beings were like drones in a Borg hive?

Yeah, but what if your President is more concerned about his golf game than about the national economy. There is something behaviorally messed up with that.

Nice writeup, Anne. Good analysis. I’m not convinced this woman’s research does apply (she promotes herself and her research by applying it to current events).

Oh, give me a break. The reason for no progress is that there no consequences for their actions (or inactions). Stop paying them, make them pay for their own lunches, close the cafeteria, ride the bus, walk, stand in line, get groped at the airport, pay street prices for their haircuts and dos, and start treating them like spoiled incompetant brats. Sheesh, it’s not that hard.

The Obama plan is to position the Republicans as the fall guys.
If the economy gets better, he can reclaim the sequester.
If it tanks, he can now, with the aid of his minions in the press, blame the Republicans.
He sees this as a win-win.

The worst case scenario is that nothing happens. Then the Republicans can’t be blamed and there is nothing to take credit for.

This only goes to prove that no good deed will go unpunished.
Meanwhile, our President isn’t interested fixing the debt problem except by raising taxes.